By allowing this humanitarian crisis to unfold
right under its nose, Asean is starting to look more and more ineffective and
irrelevant
On June 16, 2012, Aung
San Suu Kyi finally was able to receive the Nobel Peace Prize that
she had won back in 1991. In her acceptance speech, she applauded the fact
that the Nobel Peace Prize had made the world remember the struggle for
democracy in Myanmar. She noted: “to be forgotten … is to die a little.” Thus,
she argued, the democratic movement could stay alive in Myanmar because it was
not forgotten by the world, by the virtue of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fast forward to today, and now the ethnic Rohingya are the forgotten
people whose exodus has turned into a humanitarian crisis — forcing
the world to remember. Thousands of Rohingya refugees left
Myanmar to escape persecution and they were left adrift at sea after the Thai
authority closed the usual human-trafficking route over
land and began a crackdown after learning of grave abuses by the
traffickers and discovering the existence of mass graves containing remains of
likely hundreds of Rohingya victims.
In light of the
crisis, Suu Kyi was pressed by Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, a
fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate, to do something. She was urged to
finally speak out to help the mainly Muslim ethnic group and to stop their
persecution in Buddhist-majority Myanmar.
Unfortunately, Suu Kyi
demurred. Repeatedly stating that this is a complicated issue, Suu Kyi has not
done anything — publicly at least — to try and stop the persecution of the
Rohingya. She ignored their fate when Myanmar President Thein Sein drove them
into refugee camps. She chose to forget this inconvenient problem, especially
as it may bedevil her and her party’s political ambitions in Myanmar,
where a vast majority of Burmese view the Rohingya in a negative light. They
are mostly seen not as fellow citizens, but as illegal immigrants from
Bangladesh.
Ethical responsibility
The situation is quite
ironic, considering that in her optimistic Nobel acceptance speech, Suu Kyi had
expressed her hope that there would be a world without fear, where everyone
joined hands to create a peaceful world with no refugees, homeless people or
those without hope. Was this beautiful dream of hers simply a
rhetorical device? A politically correct speech to satisfy her audience abroad?
Of course it would be
unfair to simply dump the entire refugee problem in Suu Kyi’s lap, considering
that she did not create the problem in the first place. Rather, it was the
discriminatory policies of the Myanmar military regime that sparked
the crisis. Still, as one of the world’s most prominent human rights
activists, Suu Kyi bears a large amount of what the French philosopher Emmanuel
Levinas has described as ethical responsibility. Such ethical
responsibility does not come by choice — it is a responsibility
everyone has, to some degree, to help others who are in need.
And that “everyone”
includes Myanmar’s neighbors. The refugee crisis has turned into a regional
issue, in which a couple of Myanmar’s neighbors, notably Indonesia,
Thailand and Malaysia, are involved whether they like it or not. Countries have
already provided humanitarian assistance to those stranded at sea
and are allowing them to reside in refugee camps. But this isn’t
enough.
The root cause of
the refugee crisis is Myanmar’s discriminatory stance toward the Rohingya,
who it does not recognize as its citizens. Not surprisingly, with the
refugee crisis seemingly no nearer to an end and with so much money and
resources now being spent to deal with the consequences of Myanmar’s policies,
member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have started
voicing their displeasure in pointed terms to Myanmar and its president,
Thein Sein. Myanmar, however, has bluntly stated that
there is no humanitarian crisis, arguing that there is no proof
that the immigrants are Rohingya, and the country refuses to attend any
regional meeting that even mentions the word “Rohingya” on the invitation.
A dilemma for Asean
This creates a serious
dilemma for Asean, as the regional organization was formed on the
basic principle of non-intervention: fellow member states are not supposed
to interfere in internal matters of any other member state. But by
allowing this humanitarian crisis to unfold right under its nose, Asean is
starting to look more and more ineffective and irrelevant. If it cannot deal
with regional issues such as the Rohingya crisis, then how could it be expected
to play a role in solving external problems such as the territorial disputes in
the South China Sea, which have the potential to devastate the region if they
spiral out of control.
The exodus from
Myanmar of a group of people that is politically inconvenient to remember by
one of the world’s best-known human rights activists, has brought into the
open a glaring weakness of Asean. This is a problem that many would prefer
to be forgotten as soon as possible and that is presumably what the members of
Asean will now try to accomplish: find a face-saving compromise that would
sweep the Rohingya problem under the rug while continuing to pretend that all
is well in the region.
However, should the
Asean member states be willing to take this refugee crisis seriously, they
could end up strengthening the Asean community and taking some bold
steps toward a united vision and a shared regional identity.
It is high time
for the Asean community to develop a common policy to solve regional problems,
notably illegal immigration and human trafficking. This common policy, of
course, should be binding and unanimously accepted, which to some degree would
help bypass the principle of non-intervention, which often hinders efforts to
resolve humanitarian crises.
A common policy
would help Asean fulfill its ethical responsibility and help the
organization gain respect as a grouping that not only talks the talk but also
walks the walk when it comes to standing up for human rights in the
region.
Asrudin Azwar is an
international relations analyst from the Asrudian Center. Yohanes Sulaiman is a
lecturer in international politics at the National Defense University (Unhan).
No comments:
Post a Comment